Re: draft-miller-secsh-umac-00.txt

[Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost>]

[This time _with_ the mailing list]

In article <E1HyTJa-0007ON-00%ixion.tartarus.org@localhost> you write:
> (b) defining UMAC to use whatever block cipher is chosen by the
>     normal key exchange process? (Though I suppose you'd at the
>     very least have to introduce a special case to preserve MAC
>     functionality when the kex process settles on the `none'
>     cipher.)

Please, no!  I suppose there might be some small gain from this, but 
nothing like enough to outweigh the horribleness of the idea.

>I think that at the very least I'd be marginally more comfortable if
>this draft specifically stated that the default AES-128 was in use.

That might be nice, but I think RFC 4418 is clear enough that AES-128 is 
implied.

-- 
Ben Harris